Robert A. Slovak v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A

Opinion

5 * * *

6 ROBERT A. SLOVAK, Case No. 3:13-cv-00569-MMD-CLB

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al., 9

Defendants. 10

11 12 Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate 13 Judge Carla L. Baldwin (ECF No. 501 (“R&R”)), recommending the Court deny Tory M. 14 Pankopf Ltd.’s (“Pankopf”)1 motion to enforce attorney’s lien (ECF No. 497 (“Motion”)).2 15 Pankopf filed an objection.3 (ECF No. 501 (“Objection”).) For the reasons discussed 16 herein, the Court overrules the Objection, adopts the R&R, and denies the Motion. 17 Pankopf’s Motion asks the Court to enter judgment, under NRS § 18.015, in 18 Pankopf’s favor “quantifying the [attorney’s] lien in Mr. Slovak’s Property and his file in 19 the amount” of the outstanding legal fees. (ECF No. 497 at 5.) Judge Baldwin 20 recommends denying the Motion, finding that the supporting records show Pankopf 21 22 23 1Plaintiff retained Tory Pankopf to represent him in this action in January 2018 24 through April 2025. (ECF No. 497 2-3.) Pankopf asserts Plaintiff’s outstanding legal bill amounts to $150,509.61. (Id. at 5.) 25 2The Court adopts Judge Baldwin’s recitation of the relevant background facts and 26 procedural history and will not repeat the underlying facts in this order. (ECF No. 501 at 1-2.) 27 3In light of Pankopf’s Objection, the Court reviews the R&R de novo. See 28 U.S.C. 28 § 636(b)(1) (Where a party timely objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the Court is required to “make a de novo determination of those 2 deem the lien discharged.4 (ECF No. 501 at 4.) 3 In his Objection, Pankopf argues Judge Baldwin erred in finding that the lien was 4 discharged because payments exceeding the amount stated in the lien were made if 5 additional fees were incurred. (ECF No. 502 at 3.) Judge Baldwin relies on Nevada case 6 law for the proposition that “A valid tender of payment operates to discharge a lien.” (ECF 7 No. 497 at 3 (citing Renfroe v. Carrington Mortg. Servs., LLC, 456 P.3d 1055 (Nev. 2020)) 8 (quoting Bank of America, N.A. v. SFR Invs. Pool 1, LLC, 427 P.3d 113, 117 (Nev. 9 2018)).) Pankopf argues these cases are distinguishable because they relate to discharge 10 of a super majority lien under NRS § 116.3116. (ECF No. 502 at 4.) The Court is 11 unpersuaded because the point is what operates to discharge a lien—here, evidence of 12 payments of fees incurred. Pankopf further argues that Judge Baldwin did not consider 13 that the lien here was also a retaining lien. (Id. at 2-3.) Pankopf cites to Fredianelli v. 14 Price, 402 P.3d 1254 (Nev. 2017) as support for its argument that the Court should 15 adjudicate its retaining lien over the Property. (Id.) In that case, the Nevada Supreme 16 Court affirmed the district court’s enforcement of a retaining lien over the client’s “papers 17 and files left” in the attorney’s possession under NRS § 18.015(1)(b). Fredianelli, 402 18 P.3d at 1257. NRS § 18.015(1)(b) provides, in pertinent part, for a lien “upon any file or 19 other property properly left in the possession of the attorney by a client.” But Pankopf 20 does not contend that he has possession over Plaintiff’s Property or that Plaintiff left his 21 Property in Pankopf’s possession for the Court to adjudicate the lien.5 22 In sum, the Court agrees with Judge Baldwin and will adopt the R&R. 23

24 4The Notice of Attorney’s Fee Lien was executed on December 24, 2020 and asserted unpaid fees and costs in the amount of $21,858.47. (ECF No. 497-2.) Judge 25 Baldwin correctly noted that the records provided show Pankopf received payments totaling $246,114.29 after December 24, 2020. (ECF No. 501 at 4.) 26 5Pankopf’s Motion does assert that it has claimed a retaining lien in Plaintiff’ file, 27 including the note and deed of trust. (ECF No. 497 at 3.) However, the Motion primarily seeks to enforce the lien against the real property located at 928 Northwood Blvd. in 28 Incline Village, Nevada. (Id.) 1 It is therefore ordered that Pankopf's Objection (ECF No. 502) is overruled. 2 It is further ordered that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge 3 || Carla L. Baldwin (ECF No. 501) is accepted and adopted in full. 4 It is further ordered that Pankopf’s motion to enforce attorney's lien (ECF No. 497) 5 || is denied. 6 DATED THIS 23 Day of September 2025. 7

9 □□ MIRANDA M. DU 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28